Illini Football 2026

[lstewart53x3]

Well let's be honest here. Bret inherited a pretty talented roster from Lovie and our overall talent level is down a good bit from where it has been the past few years. Maybe there are some diamonds in the freshman class, but it's safe to say that in terms of talent, our sophomore through senior classes rank in the bottom quartile of the Big 10. I believe in BB, but his recruiting and portal additions haven't been sufficient to keep us in the top half of the league. I don't think it is an unfair request to ask what they are doing to address that shortcoming if I'm going to give $1M to the program.

I think bluemountain's got it figured out.

Recruiting isn't where it needs to be to complete.

The solution? Withhold funds that would be used for recruiting.

Our fanbase literally argues against the improvement of our program.

 

[lstewart53x3]

Well let's be honest here. Bret inherited a pretty talented roster from Lovie and our overall talent level is down a good bit from where it has been the past few years. Maybe there are some diamonds in the freshman class, but it's safe to say that in terms of talent, our sophomore through senior classes rank in the bottom quartile of the Big 10. I believe in BB, but his recruiting and portal additions haven't been sufficient to keep us in the top half of the league. I don't think it is an unfair request to ask what they are doing to address that shortcoming if I'm going to give $1M to the program.

I know I’ve probably belabored this point too much already, but:

Pretend you’re a Purdue fan.

Would you be happy or mad at a booster is withholding a million dollars that could be used for recruiting?

Happy, right?

If your grand plan for Illinois football would make our enemies happy, it’s probably not a good plan.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I think bluemountain's got it figured out.

Recruiting isn't where it needs to be to complete.

The solution? Withhold funds that would be used for recruiting.

Our fanbase literally argues against the improvement of our program.

I see where both of you are coming from.

I don't think it's a question of withholding funds. I do think donors make decisions based on a sense of ROI (not real ROI, because donors don't actually recoup any financial investment). I agree that, overall, Bielema has done a great job and this should be proof of concept for donors that the "ROI" is there for our football program, on the whole. At the same time, with regards to the roster composition for this year's program, I don't think it was optimal. Other programs are clearly doing more with the same or less than us. As much as I like Houser, I can't help but wonder if the better play was to spend less on that position and get someone more middle of the conference level, and then have more money to spread around, particularly on the defensive side. I do think donors will want some reassurance that lessons have been learned and there will be some improvement in this area. If people are going to open up their wallets for a $40 million roster, I think they'll want to know they're not doing so just to get $30 million results.

The other potential issue for football right now is that donating to our basketball program is clearly returning more "ROI" than donating to football. If you have, say, $1 million to spend on donations to college athletics, would you rather that money go towards trying to win a national championship in basketball, or trying to get to 8 or 9 wins in football? Personally, I'd go basketball every single time right now.

An interesting question is, what would the implications for our basketball program have been if we'd somehow made the CFP last season? Surely investment in the football roster would be higher than it is now. And surely while the total investment in the athletic programs would possibly be higher, at least some of that increased football roster spending would have come at the expense of basketball. Would that mean we'd have lost Andrej? Maybe the Ivisic's? Been unable to land Vaaks? It's an interesting thought experiment. How much of the current basketball roster would you trade for a better football roster?

 

[FloridaMan]

Well let's be honest here. Bret inherited a pretty talented roster from Lovie and our overall talent level is down a good bit from where it has been the past few years. Maybe there are some diamonds in the freshman class, but it's safe to say that in terms of talent, our sophomore through senior classes rank in the bottom quartile of the Big 10. I believe in BB, but his recruiting and portal additions haven't been sufficient to keep us in the top half of the league. I don't think it is an unfair request to ask what they are doing to address that shortcoming if I'm going to give $1M to the program.

and it is, by and large, on the defensive side. And that falls directly on BB and his decision to keep a DC that was not getting it done in recruiting replacements for Lovie's recruits. He has to figure out how to get the right person with the ability to both coach and recruit. But that's why he's near the top of the league in salary. Josh has to help him put money in place to be able to do that as well.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

If I'm a big donor, I say "no problem, I would love to stroke a check for $1M to help bring in better talent. Before I do that though, tell me what you are going to do to make sure I'm not wasting on my money on guys like TJ Taylor. How are you addressing your existing shortcomings in talent evaluation and development?"

Lol, GOD I wish I were a billionaire who could just waste his extra cash on making the Illini elite.

"Alright, Josh ... I have $150 million here that I want to go toward my beloved Illini. And you can have $5 million of it today for NIL."

"... and if you use this $45 million to fix the ugly-!!! Horseshoe, I will give you the remaining $100 million to also use for NIL."

 

[lstewart53x3]

I see where both of you are coming from.

I don't think it's a question of withholding funds. I do think donors make decisions based on a sense of ROI (not real ROI, because donors don't actually recoup any financial investment). I agree that, overall, Bielema has done a great job and this should be proof of concept for donors that the "ROI" is there for our football program, on the whole. At the same time, with regards to the roster composition for this year's program, I don't think it was optimal. Other programs are clearly doing more with the same or less than us. As much as I like Houser, I can't help but wonder if the better play was to spend less on that position and get someone more middle of the conference level, and then have more money to spread around, particularly on the defensive side. I do think donors will want some reassurance that lessons have been learned and there will be some improvement in this area. If people are going to open up their wallets for a $40 million roster, I think they'll want to know they're not doing so just to get $30 million results.

The other potential issue for football right now is that donating to our basketball program is clearly returning more "ROI" than donating to football. If you have, say, $1 million to spend on donations to college athletics, would you rather that money go towards trying to win a national championship in basketball, or trying to get to 8 or 9 wins in football? Personally, I'd go basketball every single time right now.

An interesting question is, what would the implications for our basketball program have been if we'd somehow made the CFP last season? Surely investment in the football roster would be higher than it is now. And surely while the total investment in the athletic programs would possibly be higher, at least some of that increased football roster spending would have come at the expense of basketball. Would that mean we'd have lost Andrej? Maybe the Ivisic's? Been unable to land Vaaks? It's an interesting thought experiment. How much of the current basketball roster would you trade for a better football roster?

A couple thoughts:

1. For sure, this was a bad offseason by Bret. The timing of the Henry firing, the Hauck hire, the portal additions on defense. All missteps.

2. But if you want a good program, and you have the financial resources to help, help. Because offering less funds certainly won’t help.

3. In terms of financial prudence (getting good results out of resources a program has), Bret’s been one of the best. Over the past 5 years, our talent composite has been in the high 60s and our metrics have been in the low 40s. So we’re finishing, on average, about 30 spots higher in the team rankings than we are in the talent rankings. There’s probably only a handful of teams in the country who can say the same.

So even though the results this year haven’t been up to par, Bret’s track record at IL has demonstrated ability to outperform the resources he has.

4. Whether or not you’d prefer to invest into basketball over football is a different conversation altogether. As a booster, it’s fine to allocate resources to basketball instead, just don’t complain when the results aren’t there in football.

 

[Illiniaaron]

At some point you have to pay your good players.

If they don't play as freshmen, then they'll play as sophomores, just with less experience and we have to live with growing pains. Then, they'll have to get paid as a junior. This is all based on the assumption that they stick around and don't transfer to a place where they will play immediately. This is a instant gratification world with these kids/parents. They want things, they want it now and they'll leave if they don't get it.

If they play as freshmen and do well, then they are much more seasoned going into their second year, but they'll get paid sooner.

So, they're either get paid as Sophomores or Juniors. You're not going to get around paying these kids. We either accept that and raise the money to keep them or we continue to go into the portal and get what we can afford, which as we've seen on the defense.....what we can afford isn't very good.

It all comes back to the same conclusion.....either have the money and be good or don't and have a ceiling of average.

There is a third option, which is go the Iowa route and put what we do have on the defense and on the offensive line. Get an average QB, some average receivers, a decent back and win games in the trenches. A defense travels, an offense doesn't. You can win with a dominant defense and an average offense. The reverse isn't true. It's not the most exciting brand of ball, but I'd rather win 14-10, then lose 42-21. That's a money management decision.

Look at Iowa's game by game scores since 2024, they do score points.

 

[the Castle on Daniel]

Lol, GOD I wish I were a billionaire who could just waste his extra cash on making the Illini elite.

"Alright, Josh ... I have $150 million here that I want to go toward my beloved Illini. And you can have $5 million of it today for NIL."

"... and if you use this $45 million to fix the ugly-!!! Horseshoe, I will give you the remaining $100 million to also use for NIL."

Lol, I love the commitment to getting the horseshoe leveled, but seeing as we just installed a giant video board behind it, I doubt it's changing any time soon. I'd rather all the cash go to NIL until we're so elite the DIA is OK to front the cash to expand because we're sold out every home game August-November.

 

[bluemountain]

I think bluemountain's got it figured out.

Recruiting isn't where it needs to be to complete.

The solution? Withhold funds that would be used for recruiting.

Our fanbase literally argues against the improvement of our program.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Again - fantasizing I have an extra million to give to the program. I want to give the money and I'm prepared to give the money. Having said that, I can clearly see that BB hasn't done a great job recruiting and with the portal with the money he has had available. Is it unreasonable to want to hear how he plans to correct this before committing to the payment?

 

[WyattEarp]

There's a 2 Live Crew joke somewhere in here.

I had no idea he coached football in South Florida? Thats a helluva “revelation”!

Sounds like he’s got Clayton well prepared. That’s “what I like.”

(best could do…I mean, I’m sure you’re familiar with the discography.)

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

Lol, I love the commitment to getting the horseshoe leveled, but seeing as we just installed a giant video board behind it, I doubt it's changing any time soon. I'd rather all the cash go to NIL until we're so elite the DIA is OK to front the cash to expand because we're sold out every home game August-November.

I'm fine with the decision to leave the "skeleton" there for the foreseeable future, but I reject that this means no improvements can be done. We could easily bring the first row down to field level to match the corners on either side of it and get rid of the ugly gap, for example. That would cost us almost nothing!

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

I'm fine with the decision to leave the "skeleton" there for the foreseeable future, but I reject that this means no improvements can be done. We could easily bring the first row down to field level to match the corners on either side of it and get rid of the ugly gap, for example. That would cost us almost nothing!

you’re preaching to the choir with most of us .
it clear it not viewed as a priority with Josh & others.

it’s your pet project - I get it , but you should try to put it on the back burner for awhile .
jmo, sorry bro.

 

[sbillini]

A couple thoughts:

1. For sure, this was a bad offseason by Bret. The timing of the Henry firing, the Hauck hire, the portal additions on defense. All missteps.

2. But if you want a good program, and you have the financial resources to help, help. Because offering less funds certainly won’t help.

3. In terms of financial prudence (getting good results out of resources a program has), Bret’s been one of the best. Over the past 5 years, our talent composite has been in the high 60s and our metrics have been in the low 40s. So we’re finishing, on average, about 30 spots higher in the team rankings than we are in the talent rankings. There’s probably only a handful of teams in the country who can say the same.

So even though the results this year haven’t been up to par, Bret’s track record at IL has demonstrated ability to outperform the resources he has.

4. Whether or not you’d prefer to invest into basketball over football is a different conversation altogether. As a booster, it’s fine to allocate resources to basketball instead, just don’t complain when the results aren’t there in football.

I think the chicken (better results) and egg (more donor funding) is the classic conundrum. As you point out, the chicken has been there for several years up until this season. Has that resulted in demonstrably more eggs and the eggs were just put in the wrong basket? I dont know the answer there.

More broadly, with Peterson, hauck, holding onto AH for too long, I worry we’re getting enough datapoints that bielema has a mixed at best track record of coaching hires. Even BLJ was rocky at first, and I worry there that altmyer band-aided over a lot of deficiencies on that side of the ball. Walters is the one obvious exception, admittedly. So I don’t think it’s clear, but overall I think it’s a real risk.

 

[lstewart53x3]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Again - fantasizing I have an extra million to give to the program. I want to give the money and I'm prepared to give the money. Having said that, I can clearly see that BB hasn't done a great job recruiting and with the portal with the money he has had available. Is it unreasonable to want to hear how he plans to correct this before committing to the payment?

It's not unreasonable, no. But it is silly.

It's silly to assume, that is, that Bret doesn't have a plan.

This is a 9-figure program with a team of 15-20 people who do nothing except work on making it better. Bret lives in the office. Him and Josh single-handedly pulled this program out of the doldrums of the college football world and turned it into a respectable, healthy program.

He has a plan. Will it work? Well, it'll likely work a lot better with your million dollars, mister booster.

 

[SummerofGeorge]

Back in time for our bowl game......maybe?

If we make a bowl game then it will mean our backup QB has played well enough to get us there. I don’t see it being our defense that does it.

 

[AssemblyHallForever]

If we make a bowl game then it will mean our backup QB has played well enough to get us there. I don’t see it being our defense that does it.

Let’s see what changes are made to the defense against Oregon. I am not saying it will be night and day but I can think there will be some improvement with a new DC and two weeks to prepare.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

4. Whether or not you’d prefer to invest into basketball over football is a different conversation altogether. As a booster, it’s fine to allocate resources to basketball instead, just don’t complain when the results aren’t there in football.

This is a far more central question than you make it out to be though. Nobody, not even Larry Gies of Shad Khan, is giving Illinois athletics a blank check. There is an upper limit to anyone's generosity. And so where those resources get allocated is a crucial decision. It's not mere happenstance that we apparently have one of the most expensive basketball rosters at the same time our football coach is complaining that we're getting outspent. Those things are intimately related.

So I'm going to ask again, but in a non-rhetorical way, if you could would you change the allocation for this season? Would you give up Andrej to the NBA so that we could have Coenen and McCollum, and Durojaye, and Olano back? (Would that be enough to get all of them?)

And given what we've seen on the field and on the court, would you change that allocation going forward? Would you reduce Brad's budget by $5 million so you could give Bret an extra $5 million?

I actually want people to answer because I think it's an important question. No wrong answers, it's a judgment call. To put my cards on the table, I would not. I would keep basketball as the number one priority. I think BU's consistency and recent track record make us far more likely we win in that sport, and I think we have a clearer path. I also am more a basketball than football fan so I'll admit that bias as well.

 

[Pikeillinifan]

This is a far more central question than you make it out to be though. Nobody, not even Larry Gies of Shad Khan, is giving Illinois athletics a blank check. There is an upper limit to anyone's generosity. And so where those resources get allocated is a crucial decision. It's not mere happenstance that we apparently have one of the most expensive basketball rosters at the same time our football coach is complaining that we're getting outspent. Those things are intimately related.

So I'm going to ask again, but in a non-rhetorical way, if you could would you change the allocation for this season? Would you give up Andrej to the NBA so that we could have Coenen and McCollum, and Durojaye, and Olano back? (Would that be enough to get all of them?)

And given what we've seen on the field and on the court, would you change that allocation going forward? Would you reduce Brad's budget by $5 million so you could give Bret an extra $5 million?

I actually want people to answer because I think it's an important question. No wrong answers, it's a judgment call. To put my cards on the table, I would not. I would keep basketball as the number one priority. I think BU's consistency and recent track record make us far more likely we win in that sport, and I think we have a clearer path. I also am more a basketball than football fan so I'll admit that bias as well.

These are great questions.

While I would love to get the football program more $, we are not at a level where we can do that. Taking $5M away from hoops would be a killer, while adding $5M to football would not really make much of a difference. Perhaps it would get us 2 more wins, but it would bring hoops from a potential National Championship to maybe a Sweet Sixteen.

If sacrificing $5M from hoops to get $15M for football were the question, that would be much tougher, but we all know that is not the case.

To get football where we want it, $5M would help, but $15M-$20M is what we need if we want any real shot at even being close to the top teams in the country.

 

[pvaughn8]

This is a far more central question than you make it out to be though. Nobody, not even Larry Gies of Shad Khan, is giving Illinois athletics a blank check. There is an upper limit to anyone's generosity. And so where those resources get allocated is a crucial decision. It's not mere happenstance that we apparently have one of the most expensive basketball rosters at the same time our football coach is complaining that we're getting outspent. Those things are intimately related.

So I'm going to ask again, but in a non-rhetorical way, if you could would you change the allocation for this season? Would you give up Andrej to the NBA so that we could have Coenen and McCollum, and Durojaye, and Olano back? (Would that be enough to get all of them?)

And given what we've seen on the field and on the court, would you change that allocation going forward? Would you reduce Brad's budget by $5 million so you could give Bret an extra $5 million?

I actually want people to answer because I think it's an important question. No wrong answers, it's a judgment call. To put my cards on the table, I would not. I would keep basketball as the number one priority. I think BU's consistency and recent track record make us far more likely we win in that sport, and I think we have a clearer path. I also am more a basketball than football fan so I'll admit that bias as well.

This is cheating but I want to be Alabama who heavily invests in both. Or maybe even Kentucky who consistently field a competitive football team (and squanders basketball riches, but the money is there none the less)

 

[lstewart53x3]

This is a far more central question than you make it out to be though. Nobody, not even Larry Gies of Shad Khan, is giving Illinois athletics a blank check. There is an upper limit to anyone's generosity. And so where those resources get allocated is a crucial decision. It's not mere happenstance that we apparently have one of the most expensive basketball rosters at the same time our football coach is complaining that we're getting outspent. Those things are intimately related.

So I'm going to ask again, but in a non-rhetorical way, if you could would you change the allocation for this season? Would you give up Andrej to the NBA so that we could have Coenen and McCollum, and Durojaye, and Olano back? (Would that be enough to get all of them?)

And given what we've seen on the field and on the court, would you change that allocation going forward? Would you reduce Brad's budget by $5 million so you could give Bret an extra $5 million?

I actually want people to answer because I think it's an important question. No wrong answers, it's a judgment call. To put my cards on the table, I would not. I would keep basketball as the number one priority. I think BU's consistency and recent track record make us far more likely we win in that sport, and I think we have a clearer path. I also am more a basketball than football fan so I'll admit that bias as well.

There's a lot to think through here.

On a personal level, I'm one of Robert's seventeen. So if I were a billionaire donor, I'd allocate more of my resources towards football because I'm more passionate about it, but I also understand that's likely a minority opinion amongst this fanbase.

Regarding, bluemountain's original point which was:

If he were a billionaire donor, he'd need to see [blank: more wins, a better plan, etc] before he's willing to donate more, I think that's silly. Sure, there's a chance that if you donate, it doesn't lead to more wins. But NOT donating guarantees less wins, especially if other donors think just like you.

From an athletic department perspective:

I believe Josh has already said that roughly 70% of the allowable rev share ($21 million total) gets allocated towards football ($15 million or so). So the athletic department values football at a higher level. Which makes sense. It drives more revenue than basketball.

Now, that $21 million isn't all the money going towards paying players, of course. The basketball team is likely close to that all on it's own.

That money (anything above the $5 million allocated towards the basketball team coming from rev share) has to come from actual NIL deals.

Which would naturally lean towards the basketball team because the basketball team is just infinitely more marketable. They just made a F4. They had a top 10 pick in the NBA draft. They're one of a handful of preseason national championship favorites heading into this year. They've got a preseason All-American. Multiple All-B1G preseason selections. Etc. A lot easier to get Andrej in a commercial than Collin Dixon.

 

[Point-Illinois]

It's not unreasonable, no. But it is silly.

It's silly to assume, that is, that Bret doesn't have a plan.

This is a 9-figure program with a team of 15-20 people who do nothing except work on making it better. Bret lives in the office. Him and Josh single-handedly pulled this program out of the doldrums of the college football world and turned it into a respectable, healthy program.

He has a plan. Will it work? Well, it'll likely work a lot better with your million dollars, mister booster.

Preach

 

[JucoIllini10]

Not sure if Dan wants to start a new thread for potential DCs but below are some names I'll throw out there for possible DC candidates.

If BB makes a 2nd attempt at getting someone from the Mike Macdonald defensive tree...
Zach Orr - Seahawks LB coach and former Ravens DC (probably looking for 2nd chance at NFL DC job)
Karl Scott - Seahawks DB coach and defensive pass game coordinator (was he ever a possibility when Partridge fell through?)
Don "Wink" Martindale - Recent Michigan DC and longtime NFL DC (still interested in another DC job at his age?)

If BB wants to grab a lower level DC...
Spence Nowinsky - New Mexico DC (longtime ISU and MAC DC)
Grant Olson - NDSU DC (NDSU has had a pretty good run of quality DCs and Olson maintained that success as they transitioned to the MWC)
Nate Dreiling - Oklahoma LB coach (Jerry Kill's DC at NMSU where successfully ran 3-3-5 defense but could incorporate ideas he picked up from Venables)

 

[WeWillWhen]

I’m not saying I agree with hiding the talent, but when the question was “what do we have to lose” I think there’s a lot more moving pieces now. And I’m certainly not in favor of playing the inferior player. I interpreted the original question as the opposite. Do we play to win now? Or play the underclassmen, deal with the growing pains during a down year, and play to win next year?

Needing to pay Clayton a lot of retention money as a result of strong performance would be a very good problem to have.